Nancy and Mark pulled together excellent notes about our joint sessions in Missouri. The only "solo" interview I did was a conference call with 3 cable system representatives. Only one of them seemed to recognize anything about libraries, education and cable TV and it seemed to me that he got some perspective from other work environments, not from his current cable job. The other reps were sort of helpful but not informed about libraries nor had ever had conversations with Missouri library people. They did acknowledge that there could have been others in their respective companies that had been involved with the state network, MORENET, libraries, etc. One of them cited a free cable service to a set of St. Louis(?)K-12 schools.

+

+

When asked about the biggest impediments their answers were consistent about what could be done to encourage buildout:

+

a) less regulation and fewer requirements;

+

b) more exchange of information within the state; and

+

c) last mile issues.

+

+

LEB

==Mark==

==Mark==

Line 565:

Line 575:

==Follow ups==

==Follow ups==

+

===MOREnet===

+

+

We kicked this around a bit and reaffirmed what you heard during the visit:

+

+

+

+

MOREnet’s success can be traced back to the people with a shared vision of a single network to support the R&E community, and their ability to collaborate. In a word, chemistry. Collaboration and compromise across the higher education, k-12 and public library communities – both at the state level and among the institutions was, and will remain, absolutely essential going forward.

−

===Don Walsch OARNET===

+

−

The key factor was the State of Ohio's decision to establish a strategic plan for networking which established at T1 as the desired standard for connectivity, and then the state need to create an environment where this level of service would be affordable statewide for all State Agencies including libraries, K-12 schools and higher education. As a result of issuing an RFP, which include all state entities, the state received favorable pricing due to the volume of the contract and the term which was 10 years. This approach is currently being considered in the next generation broadband where a T1 is no longer an adequate standard and we are looking to set a new goal to provide a range of ethernet connectivity (10 megabits to 1 gigabit) as the new standard.

+

I’ll take the liberty of adding a second factor: the funding mechanism gave us the ability to purchase telecommunication services state-wide (buying power), aggregating demand and in turn providing significant business incentives to our telecommunications providers to build out infrastructure to meet our requirements.

−

With the integration of voice, data, video and internet services using IP there will be rapidly increasing broadband requirements. As with the previous approach the key is to establish the standard and set that as the state goal and then to develop an RFP for the private sector to compete for the best price and options to deliver this service. We are also looking at expanding the scope to include all state, local and federal governments in the state as well as research faciities, education and education related and healthcare. The theory is by further expanding the eligibility entities the pricing may be more favorable in the RFP.

1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?

All the libraries are on MOREnet
All the libraries and their branches have a minimum T-1 line.
Some have of T-3
Funding
Paid for based on a formula of:
• Part state money (REAL) (pays for local routers, some local connections, and databases)
• Part local money on a formula ranging from $600 - $20,000
• E-rate
Main problems are with local phone companies who may not have the same quality as MOREnet.

Is it scalable? If you experience slow down in response rate-does MOREnet catch or do you? MOREnet notices it before the library—during high traffic the library does notice/cost goes up if need to add bandwidth/may give fraction of a t1 if need to increase bandwidth, don’t have to get a full t1—if doing something to maximize pipeline there is not additional cost.

3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?

Future Uses
• Library online, more of a community center, a virtual library
• Book clubs on line
• Federated and visual search
• Customized web interface based on electronic profiling based on informatin on the library card
• Automatic notification of books or programs based on profiling
• Podcasting of book reviews, children’s story hour
• Downloadable audio and visual
• Gaming for teens
• Second life and other social networking
• More databases so people don’t have to come to the library

4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?

They don’t really have any problems because MOREnet anticipates their bandwidth needs and provides them with increased bandwidth as they need it.

Some slow down in the middle of the afternoon due to student use but nothing major.

5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?
MOREnet does all the planning for them.

6.If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?
See above

7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?
They don’t have any barriers. MOREnet does it all.
Most barriers have to do with weather impact on cooper wires, loss of city power, different phone companies. MOREnet negotiates for repairs or restoration of service.

8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?
Who applies for the E-rate funds?
How does CIPA impact?
• MOREnet applies for all the telecommunication e-rate funds for them. They just have to do the technology plan for MOREnet.
• Some apply for their own erate funds for POTS and internal connections.
• Erate is complicated and for some not worth the effort
• For others, it brings in needed dollars.
• MOREnet provides the filtering as well. Only Columbia does not filter and they pay extra to be off the filtering.

Some have done studies to see how much their internet services would cost without MOREnet. Some said they would have no computers for the public at all.

10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?
• Support MOREnet
• Tell other states about MOREnet
• Encourage multi-state networks
• Support REAL
• Advocate lighting dark fiber. Management of issues relating to this.
• Training
• Equipment and software and routers and switchs.

Why/How MOREnet
Why and how did MOREnet get established from their point of view.
• There were equal partners between school, public, and academic libraries
• They showed the efficiencies of aggregation
• The State Library set up a committee to figure out how to get internet to rural parts of the state. They established REAL which initially stood for Rural Electronic Access to Libraries and then became Remote electronic Access to Libraries
• Bill Mitchell was instrumental. He had vision and provided leadership of what could be done with internet access
• He delivered an inspiring message of what the internet could do for rural communities
• They held a conference (MOREnet Conferences) to see what others were doing. Demonstration of uses. Sent the message “If we can do it, so can you.”
• Rural public libraries and school districts got computers at the same time. This showed true equality.
• They gave out 20 grants: 10 for 56k lines and 10 for dial up. This was the REAL appropriation from the legislature.
• Wrote letters to politicians about how important REAL was.
• MOREnet provided email to legislators for free
• This aggregation created a market for telecom companies
• The library community are good advocates
• There are topnotch tech people at MOREnet
• MOREnet supported local ISPs at the beginning. Often, MOREnet provided the only internet access in town.

March 1, 2007Note: This was a slightly abbreviated focus group. Not all of the questions were asked

1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?
Rolling Hills: Use MOREnet and also Cable companies
T3 into one library and cable access at all four libraries.
Internet goes through T3.
Usage: MOREnet comes to them and tells them they need more

Springfield: ½ through MOREnet
10 meg at main facility.
City utilities connections
T-1 connections
Moving to MOREnet for those facilities

St. Louis: Main at central, was 10meg and at 96% capacity. From MOREnet
Now have 20 meg and now at 75% of that line.
17 locations about the city and that comes from AT&T but get bottled up.
Funding: Comes out of normal operation

3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?

• More video conference at all of the facilities
• Share interesting programs at multiple locations
• Have computer wants around system
• More public computers. One branch wants 10 more computers and waiting for bandwidth to install.
• YA department wants gaming.
• Remove restrictions on wireless connections.

4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?
• Sufficient bandwidth between main trunks.
• Between main and branches is the bottleneck.
• Need bandwidth to put out more computers.
• Turned sound on had a huge impact. Can watch news, or music videos. Did damage to data connections.
• Every time free up a bottleneck another one occurs

5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?
• MOREnet does a good job of planning.
• How much depends on philosophy and what they allow patrons to do. Not a numbers game.
• Not say that a certain number of computers means certain bandwidth.
• 30 or 40 PCs at a branch. Process of trying to figure out what they allow to go on the PCs.
• 10 years ago ½ T-1 might be ok. With 15 computers T1 is the lowest to consider.
• 50 PCs 2 T1s
• T1 is minimum for even small connection.
• Rely on MOREnet to anticipate growth.
• Next generation network is scaled to meet long range goals.

6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for?

7. What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?

8. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?
• Communication on what MOREnet provides.
• Not sure what MOREnet provides. Only one connection to the library or more??
• In rural areas, infrastructure limits build out
• MOREnet bidding those in bulk. If doing it alone, could not do it.
• Aggregation makes it work so have to serve rural as well as urban.

8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?Who applies for the E-rate funds?How does CIPA impact?
• MOREnet does erate for internet. Does own internal connections.
• Rules are always changing
• Yearly time constraints.
• After to apply for following year.
• Between aug and jan may be tracking 3 years at one time
• MOREnet does the filtering for some.
• Check out the MOREnet solution
• Worth the money

9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?
• In house network so talk to AT&T.
• Talk with vendors from who got routers
• City
• MOREnet for internet connections
• For smaller libraries, depend on MOREnet for all support. Could not do it without MOREnet. MOREnet tracks usage, problems, etc.
• Gates gives money. Problem isn’t bandwidth (St. Louis) but maintenance of computers. Gates has helped.

10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?
• Fund MOREnet.
• Help with misc equipment inside the library like switches and firewall. Want to isolate public computers from private network.
• Funding for telecom/networking fee.
• Just the Gates name brings positive attention.
• The fact that he supports, believes in and supports libraries makes a big difference.

SUMMARY
In Missouri, we know about roads. What happens when you don’t maintain the roads? What happens to citizens when they buy nice cars and try to run them on gravel roads?
Broadband is needed not just from Gates but state and federal government. We need an Eisenhower initiative to build the network. We can prolong the life of a computer but need the high speed highways to drive on.

It is a public issue the state should understand that they need to maintain the state highways and not take private money to do this. This is a state and federal necessity.

Role of the State Library in establishing MOREnet
MOREnet established.
Criteria for local public libraries to join. State library screened.
Had to have two computers for the public, networked.
Collected data. If didn’t have computers or networks or whatever, the state library encouraged/assisted the local libraries to get it.
State Library used LSTA and LSCA funds to help libraries get to the level where they could join REAL.
Libraries had to have an email account and come to training once they were accepted in the REAL program.
MOREnet set up a help desk.
When a library was accepted, MOREnet goes out and installs network, routers, etc.
MOREnet had user groups.
Training paid for by state appropriation.
MOREnet would also review local infrastructure network configurations and do a consult but would not go out and provide direct technical support through a visit.
State Library approves local technology plans so MOREnet could apply for erate.
OCLC rep M-LINK was a big partner and great help doing training and road show

Technology standards
Established technology standards for equipment.
People got practice in justifying why they needed equipment or connections. The state library would go out and help them make the case to city government.
Regional library director groups formed and meet regularly and help coach each other along.
Directors and techies each have an email list and they shared information about policies and trouble shooting. This turned into legislative clout which MLA used..
Addresses isolation that rural libraries feel.

Not use WebJunction much at the state library. Not a partner and not buying coupons now. Push people toward MOREnet instead.

Because MOREnet was handling the connectivity so well, the State Library could deal with applications and policies and leveraging grants to keep making progress.

Factors contribution to success:
Collaboration at the top
Support from state library
Financial help at the local level from state, federal, gates
Education of schools, libraries, and universities
Need to access internet
Integrated network of school, public, academic
Immediate feedback on applications from internet access and database access, digitization
Also retrospective conversion grants
Show Me the World development
Virtual integrated catalog using OCLC Worldcat
Group catalog: First search results are Missouri holdings
Pay for online ILL
Have general databases, health, business, newspapers
Students come in for homework

Missouri Virtual Schools might also have an impact.

What can Gates do?
Influence e-rate to lessen paperwork.
Pay for a roadshow to demonstrate what you can get with more bandwidth.

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Director of new Virtual School Initiative

Involved in the beginning of MOREnet.
Worked with Bill Mitchell at Univ. of Missouri, who was running the computer system.
There were developing own network in Columbia, MO.
Began to brainstorm about Columbia’s needs and realized that a lot of public libraries needed connection as well.
Felt it was important to have a state run network.
Set up a network in Columbia of the school, public library, and university and then expanded it around the state.

Curt and Bill traveled around the state to convince people that a statewide network was a good idea. They tried to convince people that the whole state really needed a network. Particularly in Missouri where there are so many rural areas. A lot of small schools and public libraries needed internet access.

With support from local communities they were able to go to the legislature. They convinced the legislature to fund the network. They used the concept of accessibility, particularly in rural areas so students could get to the internet. They talked about the haves and have nots. The Capitol wanted everybody to be treated equally.

It was very important that they had the right people at the table.
Schools, Department of Education
Public libraries, MLA, State Library and State Librarian
University of Missouri
City government in Columbia but they dropped out when talks turned to state wide.
Legislators

“Have to have the right people at the table.”
Have similar needs of users. Able to do so many new things when they work together.

The key players are still at the table.
Once it’s established, also important to have the right people on the table over time.

Barriers to the network
Fear of change
Fear of losing local control
They overcame this by providing them what they didn’t have – internet.
They talked about the amount of resources available on the internet.
They did demonstrations of what will be available once the network is in place.
They did a “dog and pony show” to demonstrate the uses on the internet.
“Nothing better than a dog and pony show.”
They talked that the service could provide statewide contracts for resources that would allow everybody to have access.
When they bought EBSCO for the first time people said “WOW”

They had to build the interest statewide.
Membership in MOREnet is voluntary so they had to convince local communities AND legislature that it was worth while.

Use of MOREnet
Video conferencing
Data base access
It has become a way of life that is taken for granted. All data is collected on MOREnet.
Their acquisition system for data is dependent on MOREnet. If there is a threat, then people complain.
Some people think it can be done cheaper but it would not as good. They might have internet connection but not all the other services.
MOREnet also provides the training. No other place does this. They have a help desk that people can call. They do train the trainer workshops. Network security. CISCO training. Not as much end-user training but rather through the help desk and train the trainers.
MOREnet not only provides access but does not leave local libraries “out there holding the bag.” This is a way to mitigate fear. They not only provide the service but help them with problems. Some small school and libraries still don’t have the technical staff. Down time on MOREnet is minimal, almost non-existent.

Next issue big issue is increasing bandwidth. The new school system is a heavy bandwidth user. The Missouri Virtual School is mainly students who will access the Internet at home. May not have much impact on MOREnet if they access but home but could have if they access from the public library.

New Services needed
Need more bandwidth.

Whole organization of MOREnet is to provide internet service throughout the state plus a lot of extra services.

REAL – money from legislature that goes to state library then to MOREnet.
This money provides databases and “tail circuits” last mile.
$2.9 million. There is a membership fee to belong to MOREnet. Assessed on population and some other factors.
The State library charges the MOREnet fees and sets a formula so all libraries pay. The least pays about $500 for small libraries to $20,000 for large libraries.

Public library participation goes through state library budget.
Higher ed and elem and sec schools goes through higher ed budget.

Internet 2
A lot of excitement but little benefit to school and public libraries.
Higher ed may have a different answer.

Video streaming
Schools are purchasing videos online to show as part of the curriculum.

Future issues
State funding. Legislators take it for granted.
Bandwidth demand. Applications are using more bandwidth.
There is a lot of bureaucracy MOREnet has to deal with because they are part of a major university.
RFPs have to go through university and can take months.
MU concerned that if MOREnet goes out of business, MU doesn’t want to be left holding the bag. Put policies in place to protect themselves.
Rely on MOREnet for the vision for the future. They take a leadership role in this.

Future of broadband for libraries
Have a statewide network like MOREnet. MOREnet negotiates all the contracts for the state. Aggregates demand.

Gates
Subsidy for the last mile.
Equipment
Development of content (current and historical)
Make more things available electronically

LYNNE
Conference Call with Cable Reps

Nancy and Mark pulled together excellent notes about our joint sessions in Missouri. The only "solo" interview I did was a conference call with 3 cable system representatives. Only one of them seemed to recognize anything about libraries, education and cable TV and it seemed to me that he got some perspective from other work environments, not from his current cable job. The other reps were sort of helpful but not informed about libraries nor had ever had conversations with Missouri library people. They did acknowledge that there could have been others in their respective companies that had been involved with the state network, MORENET, libraries, etc. One of them cited a free cable service to a set of St. Louis(?)K-12 schools.

When asked about the biggest impediments their answers were consistent about what could be done to encourage buildout:
a) less regulation and fewer requirements;
b) more exchange of information within the state; and
c) last mile issues.

Mark is the Executive Deputy Secretary of State and used to work in the state budget office at the time of MOREnet's creation

Exec Summary

There are many champions within MO that made this happen (not just one)

Collaboration between various state agencies (in MO case Higher Ed, Library, K12, Budget Office and Governor’s Office) is very important in his mind for success

One thing we haven’t talked about before is collaborating with the state budget office. Had Mark not intervened in 2002, K12 may have pulled out of MORENET, which would have pulled some funding.

Mark worked for the state budget office from 1993-2003. While there, he saw a need to bring information technology to state government as a way of reducing costs (to which he encountered reisistance from the state data processing people. Basically, Mark is a budge analyst at heart and enjoys figuring out how to pay for things and the politics involved to ensure that the money makes it through to the legislators.

Here is Mark’s take on the creation and continuation of MORENET

A group of individuals got together to discuss how to get Missouri connected

Bill Mitchell from the Higher Ed Community

Elden Wallace (also of higher ed community, but used to work at state governor’s office

Mike Hartsmann from the Governor’s Office

State Librarian (Anne ?) (

Additional note Mark is married to one of the employees of the state library

Mark (at the state budget office)

They wanted to figure out how to connect the higher ed, K12 and libraries using a common network platform

The group worked collaboratively to establish MORENET and ensure that MORENET continued to exist

Received some seed money from State Budget’s office

Approrpriation originally appeared in 3 separate budget requests

Office of administration (for libs) and then was transferred to state library

Higher Ed

K12

During 2002 budget crunch, K12 was looking to cut funding to MORENET

But Mark (working as the de facto budget director for the state) removed appropriation from K12 budget and placed it into the higher ed approps (which would prevent Ed. Dept. from slashing funding

Presently, MORENET is funded by 2 appropriations

One to state library for last mile to libs and databases

One to higher ed to pay for backbone and last mile to k12 and higher ed

The group collaborated to make educational/maketing literature and to determine bandwidth requirements for entities (we’l

Thinks MORENET helped spur broadband deployment (eg. Anchor/tenant)

Upcoming

Barriers @ formation

Not many; they made their communication to leg. clear as to their intents and the group seemed to be good @ policticing

MORENET was created during a time of fiscal health, so lots money was available, they had the right group at the right time

Future Barriers

Republican leg and governor who don’t see MORENET as essential and would like to cut funding

Indirectly, the term limits affect their ability to inform legislatures on the importance of MORENET

Attempt to fold MORENET into something it’s not e.g. connecting additional state agencies or foregoing MORENET in favor of complete state-wide network w/ all gov’t agencies on it

Here are his suggestions for B&MG Foundation

Would like to see help to rural libraries to get connected to MORENET

In other states, he would recommend encouraging collaboration between libaries and other stakeholders within a state to form an action plan @ the state level to help entities get connected

In 1990, with the advent of Gopher and the opening of NSFnet to more than the large research Universities, MOREnet noticed a large spike in bandwidth and was brought down for

Bandwidth increased steadily from 1990-1994

In 19994, there was another spike in bandwidth utilization (due to the advent of Mosaic)

Steeper increase from 1994-late nineties, when it spiked again and in continues to increase at a faster rate then previous

Hitting a wall now because of video, audio and social networking sites

Has bandwidth monitoring software to monitor bandwidth utilization

Uses this to forecast future demand. This forecasting is not so much an exact science as empirically based

Has to time bandwidth increases to (so is important to forecast):

E-Rate

University Procurement Procedures

Termination penalties (e.g. has to sign contract to use circuit for x years, with penalty for early termination)

Vendor build-out

Overbuilds capacity in order to facilitate future expansion of bandwidth needs

Funding

MOREnet charges a flat rate for all libraries to be a member

This rate is used to aggregate demand and take care of ‘accidents of geography’

Does not matter if they are near an urban environment or rural (low v. high cost, relatively)

Does not charge based upon bandwidth allocation (one exception mentioned in E-Rate)

Allows for equitable access to all libraries

Technology and Biddings

Picture of backbone can be found on the web

Hit brick wall when wanted T1s to all facilities in 1998

Became anchor-tenant whereby SBC had to build out the capacity, which allowed other entities to connect

Approaching that wall in current situation—Fiber is needed but not built out across the state

Getting to the point where they outstrip the providers

Used to be able to solicit one bid to get everyone connected, but now is getting to the point where bandwidth for each entity is customized, which requires a separate RFP to build

Finds this inefficient and is looking to get FTTP in order to be able to dial up the speed at no extra marginal cost

Backbone currently operated by Show-me (a consortia of Missouri Electric companies) and Light Corp (affiliated with Century Tel)—currently runs @ 1 Gb, but expects to have 2 Gb soon

Has implementation of QoS on backbone

Allows institutions to control which packets have priority

Video and MOBIUS (statewide ILS used by Universities and a few other libraries

Has a Network Operations Center (NOC) to determine in real time bandwidth allocation and ensure there is a big enough pipe out to the Internet (ensures that the traffic on the backbone-traffic available to get out on Internet

Connects institutions via Frame Relay and T1s all the way to the backbone via one of the nodes.

Uses Ethernet to traverse the backbone

3/4 of the budget goes to AT&T and other Telcos to pay for the last mile to the institutions

Issued an RFP to build a new backbone on the day we visited

Permanently lease 2 strands of fiber for 20 years (owned by Missouri State University) and managed by MOREnet

Expects bidders to be Level 3 and Show-Me (not traditional telcos)

Will not be able to use E-Rate to pay for backbone because the backbone will be owned by MOREnet and not run by a ‘Qualifying ISP’ as required by E-Rate rules

New backbone will have 2 strands, each going at 10 Gbps, with the possibility of expanding capacity by upgrading electronics---not having to buy new capacity (a large cost savings)

Nodes will be in Kansas City, Columbia, St. Louis, Jefferson City and Springfield

Connection to Commodity Internet and I2 out of St Louis and Kansas City

Seeking to peer network with neighboring states to ensure passage of packets for no charge

Best Practices

Collaboration

Thinks building infrastructure alone is inefficient

One point of contact for helpdesk for schools, libraries and university

Librarians to assist librarians (they have a librarian on staff to help communicate with librarians)

We kicked this around a bit and reaffirmed what you heard during the visit:

MOREnet’s success can be traced back to the people with a shared vision of a single network to support the R&E community, and their ability to collaborate. In a word, chemistry. Collaboration and compromise across the higher education, k-12 and public library communities – both at the state level and among the institutions was, and will remain, absolutely essential going forward.

I’ll take the liberty of adding a second factor: the funding mechanism gave us the ability to purchase telecommunication services state-wide (buying power), aggregating demand and in turn providing significant business incentives to our telecommunications providers to build out infrastructure to meet our requirements.